Jay Kinney and Richard Smoley are the co-authors of _Hidden Wisdom: A
Guide to the Western Inner Traditions_, an in-depth primer on Western
religious traditions.
Kinney and Smoley, former editors of the now-defunct Gnosis magazine, will
be interviewed by writer John Shirley.
Welcome to inkwell.vue, Jay, Richard, and John!

First things first. Why is Wisdom Hidden and how did you get it
unhidden? And should it be? That is, if esoteric traditions were
hidden, it was on purpose, wasn't it? Why is now the time to bring them
into the public eye?
A guide to the Western Inner Traditions...so what exactly is meant by
"Western Inner Traditions"? Can a tradition really be "inner"?
The book summarizes difficult esoteric ideas and methods with
remarkable lucidity and deftness. How did you go about condensing and
synthesizing what you'd say out of what could be volumes on any one of
these subjects?
What's your object in this book?
Each chapter in Hidden Wisdom captures the essence--as far as is
practical--of some esoteric tradition or system of ideas. Your contents
page gives us: JUNG AND THE DISCOVERY OF THE UNCONSCIOUS; GNOSTICISM:
THE SEARCH FOR AN ALIEN GOD; FINDING THE INNER CHRIST: ESOTERIC
CHRISTIANITY; A LADDER BETWEEN HEAVEN AND EARTH: THE KABBALAH;
MAGICIANS: SCULPTORS OF ASTRAL LIGHT; THE RETURN OF THE PAGANS;
WITCHCRAFT AND NEOPAGANISM; SHAMANS: TECHNICIANS OF ECSTASY; THE GOLD
OF THE PHILOSOPHERS: ALCHEMY AND HERMETICISM; THE WAY OF THE SLY MAN:
THE TEACHINGS OF GI GURDJIEFF; SUFISM: THE POLES OF LOVE AND KNOWLEDGE;
THE RUMOR OF THE BROTHERHOOD: SECRET SOCIETIES AND HIDDEN MASTERS; THE
ETERNAL NEW AGE...
This is an ambitious scope. What makes you gentlemen qualified to do
this?
How did you settle on this set of traditions?
Some of these subjects in all probability complement each other; but
others are sure to have cosmological/world views in contrast, as for
example shamanism and mystical Christianity (or anyway more differences
than real parallels). So I take it that you're not advocating one over
arching system or set of linking ideas to connect them all--you'd have
to be basically accepting each as "real" while you examine it, "for
the sake of argument", in a way...Is that right?
But doesn't that leave us wondering what's valid in all these points
of view on the cosmic reality? Though they may have much in common at
times they can't all be right.
Is there some linking perennial philosophy connecting them?
Can you say a little bit about those sources for this material which
are more than just other books?
Next posting will be on specifics!

Whoa, John! One question at a time! We can probably occupy the next week
just responding to your #1 post!
So, let's see here...You asked:
"Why is Wisdom Hidden and how did you get it
unhidden? And should it be? That is, if esoteric traditions were
hidden, it was on purpose, wasn't it? Why is now the time to bring them
into the public eye?"
Probably I ought to explain that esoteric spiritual traditions tend to be
"hidden" in the same way that an apple tree is hidden in an apple. Or, to
put it slightly differently, the way a nut is hidden in its shell. In many
ways they are more structurally hidden than covertly hidden.
True, there were mystics and gnostics who were persecuted by the Church,
but that was largely because the institutional church couldn't fathom
that, in many cases, the mystics were actually penetrating into the
essence of Christianity. But because of such persecution, people who were
delving into the inner essence of the religion tended to keep a low
profile, out of a desire for self-preservation.
The other thing keeping esoteric traditions hidden tends to be that they
are simply beyond most people's interest or comprehension. In this sense,
they could be out in plain sight (as many are today) and still be
"hidden."

You next asked:
" A guide to the Western Inner Traditions...so what exactly is meant by
'Western Inner Traditions'? Can a tradition really be 'inner'?"
I originally came up with the subtitle for GNOSIS Magazine as: "A Journal
of the Western Inner Traditions." I meant several things by that. First,
there were the wisdom traditions of inner work - of working on yourself,
coming into fuller consciousness, being less asleep. That was one meaning
for inner. Another was inner as in esoteric: the spiritual essence within
outer religious structures. To use an example, this time from Islam, the
Prophet Muhammad was said to have imparted his innermost teachings (those
having to do with meditation, prayer, visionary states, and other inner
phenomena) to his son-in-law, Ali. The Sufi orders, with only one or two
exceptions, all trace themselves back to Ali and to these teachings.
The esoteric or inner traditions tend to operate on a "need to know"
basis, not unlike intelligence agencies. Most people are never going to
bother trying to achieve a state of Union with God (or the All, or Allah,
or whatever term you like), so why waste one's breath (and risk
misunderstandings) trying to explain it to them. Rather, when the pupil is
ready, the teacher will appear, as the old saw goes...

OK, one more question before I take a break and/or let Richard take on a
few of these...
" The book summarizes difficult esoteric ideas and methods with
remarkable lucidity and deftness. How did you go about condensing and
synthesizing what you'd say out of what could be volumes on any one of
these subjects?"
I can only speak for myself on this. The chapters that I wrote were on
subjects with which I was so familiar from years of study, reading, and
experience, that I had already done a lot of sifting and concluding on my
own. It was largely a matter of trying to figure out an outline for
presenting my own conclusions.
In addition, working with these subject areas, day in and day out, year
after year, as we edited GNOSIS, led us to certain mutual conclusions
about many of them. We also tried to read each other's chapters as if we
were an outside reader, and we noted to each other if things seemed to be
confusing at certain points. And, finally, we generally had several
knowledgeable person read over the chapters as we finished writing them,
to catch any errors and/or suggest how things might be better.
(And I shouldn't forget that we also benefited from a good copy-editor at
Penguin, who also made some good suggestions on cleaning it up.)

OK, a night's sleep having passed, let's look at another question or two:
"What's your object in this book?"
Our goal was fairly simple. To provide a good readable overview of the
variety of paths and traditions of inner work and spiritual inquiry that
have developed over the centuries in the West. Our focus was on helping
the reader rediscover the resources that have been available within our
own culture, but often overlooked or ignored. Since Eastern traditions
have gotten so much attention over the past few decades, we thought it
would be worthwhile to shine some light on Western traditions that are
valuable as well.
All too often, the only Western religious or spiritual approaches that get
attention in the media are either the fundamentalists or the wackos.
The intellectual establishment in our culture has a severe allergy to
seeing the spiritual quest as something to be taken seriously, with a few
notable exceptions such as Tibetan Buddhism.

And perhaps I'll take this moment in the proceedings to mention that
"Hidden Wisdom" is available through the Well bookstore at this link:
http://www.well.com/bookstore/index.html.
And another related link is the GNOSIS website, which has details of
GNOSIS back issues which are still available (but not for long!)
That's at: http://www.gnosismagazine.com.
And now, back to our previously scheduled programming...

First, let me duck in quickly and add that if you are not on the WELL and
have some questions for the authors, please send them to
inkwell-hosts@well.com. The hosts will post your questions for you.
And, now back to the interview...

While we wait for Richard to hack his way through Well Engaged or figuring
out Telnet, I might as well continue answering some of John's questions:
"Each chapter in Hidden Wisdom captures the essence--as far as is
practical--of some esoteric tradition or system of ideas. Your contents
page gives us: JUNG AND THE DISCOVERY OF THE UNCONSCIOUS; GNOSTICISM:
THE SEARCH FOR AN ALIEN GOD; FINDING THE INNER CHRIST: ESOTERIC
CHRISTIANITY; A LADDER BETWEEN HEAVEN AND EARTH: THE KABBALAH;
MAGICIANS: SCULPTORS OF ASTRAL LIGHT; THE RETURN OF THE PAGANS;
WITCHCRAFT AND NEOPAGANISM; SHAMANS: TECHNICIANS OF ECSTASY; THE GOLD
OF THE PHILOSOPHERS: ALCHEMY AND HERMETICISM; THE WAY OF THE SLY MAN:
THE TEACHINGS OF GI GURDJIEFF; SUFISM: THE POLES OF LOVE AND KNOWLEDGE;
THE RUMOR OF THE BROTHERHOOD: SECRET SOCIETIES AND HIDDEN MASTERS; THE
ETERNAL NEW AGE...
This is an ambitious scope. What makes you gentlemen qualified to do
this?"
A valid question. In answering, however, I need to point out that college
degrees or academic positions are of little value in writing about these
subjects. First, because the requirements of scholastic publishing insist
on being able to credit a printed source for every statement, and second,
because acceptable discourse within the Academy is largely hostile to most
of these subjects, or is at least dismissive.
Accordingly, the best credentials for writing about esoteric spirituality
and the occult (an often misused word) are actual experience with those
subjects and exposure to them over the years. That and common sense...

We hear reports that Richard, who is in the deep outback of Brooklyn, NY,
is still trying to upload his dispatches via the Mars Lander, but has been
running into some trouble - possible due to the secret alien base there,
hiding in the nostrils of the Face on Mars. Check back soon! In the
meantime, I'll post some further answers to the initial questions, just as
soon as I get back from the pet supply store with a cat piller.
Stay tuned.

Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:08:16 -0500
Subject: <no subject>
From: "Richard Smoley" <rmsmoley@earthlink.net>
To: inkwell-hosts@well.com
X-Priority: 3
Well, I've finally made it...
I suppose the Jreal question for me in what has been said so far is what is
hidden in these traditions.
In a way you could say that what is hidden is YOU, or, in my case, ME. One
thread that seems to link all esoteric or occult traditions is that they are
ways of unveiling the Self.
Put this way, of course, this sounds like high-minded gobbledygook. What is
this Self, after all? Don't I already know what it is?
Actually I may not. What most of these traditions say, in one form or
another, is that we customarily mistake ourselves for what we experience.
That is to say, within me there is consciousness. It is the "I" looking out
through the human telescope that is Richard Smoley. And there are the objects
of consciousness: the external world, thoughts, feelings, images, etc.
This consciousness is very subtle, and it is easily overlooked. In fact you
can never see it because it is what is doing the seeing.
This consciousness has another characteristic. Like Narcissus, it tends to
fall in love with its own reflection. Thus I see a world out there, and I
somehow think I am it. Or I experience a reaction to the world, joy,
irritation, etc., and I think I am that as well.
Much of esoteric teaching has to do with a subtle sense of differentiation
between this "I" and "the world." Slowly detaching consciousness from the
objects of consciousness. In the Lurianic Kabbalah, this is phrased in the
charmingly obscure term of "liberating the sparks." Consciousness - envisaged
as sparks of light - is seen as being embedded in everything, animate and
inanimate. It is the work of the mystic to liberate these sparks, to draw out
the consciousness in everything. But of course one must do it in oneself as
well. Perhaps one can only do it in oneself. This also is the essence of
alchemy, I believe - turning the "lead" of ordinary experience into the
"gold" of consciousness.
Now of course those who have read widely in these subjects will immediately
Jcounter - "but isn't it all ONE?"
It is, but I respectfully suggest that if you just going around saying it's
all One because you read it in a book somewhere, you're not going to get much
of anywhere.
You first have to differentiate this "I" from "the world" - reuniting them
comes at a later stage. This too, I think, is what the old alchemists are
trying to tell us. Solve et coagula. "Dissolve and coagulate." (Sounds rather
nauseating when translated into English.)

Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:25:27 -0500
Subject: <no subject>
From: "Richard Smoley" <rmsmoley@earthlink.net>
To: inkwell-hosts@well.com
X-Priority: 3
In regard to credentials: I must say I agree completely with what Jay just
said. I've had the chance to meet or at least see a good number of the
leading figures in this field, and I have to say that I don't think there's
a very clear correlation between public esteem and quality. Most of the
people I've met who struck me as being at high levels of knowledge are
completely unknown to the public.
Some of them just don't care about fame. They do what they do, and it
usually just has to do with a small number of people. Others have gone out
of their way to conceal themselves.
This actually is quite relevant to the spiritual search. Because people
sometimes seem to think, "Gee, if I could just hang around Famous Mystical
Teacher X, wouldn't that be great! I'd have it sewn up."
Famous Mystical Teacher X may well do a lot of good work. But he or she
probably is so busy with speaking engagements, book writing, etc., that he
may not have much time for you. You would probably do better to find a
teacher who knows you, can work with you personally, and give you guidance
that's specific to your needs and situation. And I don't think there are
many teachers who can do this with more than, say, a hundred people at a
time. At a maximum.

Welcome to the discussion, Richard. Thanks for passing along Richard's
postings, David. Hopefully, within a day or so, Richard can join us by
more direct means than astral travel.
My next posting will return to some of the questions. I intended to do so
in this posting, but I think I have the memory allocation set too low on
this copy of NCSA Telnet, because the buffer ran out for containing all of
the postings in topic #58...
Back shortly...

OK, John asked:
"Some of these subjects in all probability complement each other; but
others are sure to have cosmological/world views in contrast, as for
example shamanism and mystical Christianity (or anyway more differences
than real parallels). So I take it that you're not advocating one over
arching system or set of linking ideas to connect them all--you'd have
to be basically accepting each as "real" while you examine it, "for
the sake of argument", in a way...Is that right?
But doesn't that leave us wondering what's valid in all these points
of view on the cosmic reality? Though they may have much in common at
times they can't all be right.
Is there some linking perennial philosophy connecting them?"
I think the perspective that Richard and I utilized in the book was that
the various traditions covered share the context of having developed
within Western culture as well as having helped shape it. We were not
advocating any single tradition as correct or right, per se, but were
trying to tease out their specific characteristics so that the reader
would have an informed basis for judging what interested them the most.
You noted: "Though they may have much in common at times they can't all be
right." I'm not sure that I agree, although that may depend on how we
define 'right'. My own metaphysical perspective is that no single religion
or spiritual tradition or path can successfully encompass the totality of
reality. Moreover, each tradition exhibits limitations in its worldview,
its methodologies, and its proponents that are due to the unique cultural
time and places in which it arose and through which it has been handed
down to us. What's more, our own individual personalities and
psychological histories predispose us to respond more favorably to some
approaches instead of others.
Actually, the Traditionalists, such as Rene Guenon and Frithjof Schuon
have constructed a 'perennial philosophy' which attempts to validify the
major world religions, both exoterically and esoterically, in a way that
assumes that each is 'right', so to speak. Huston Smith is perhaps the
best present exponent of this perspective. However, although I think we
were influenced to a limited degree by the Traditionalists, that is not
the perspective from which we wrote the book, exactly.
Our perspective, to put it very briefly, was that all of these traditions
can be of value for proceeding with inner work and development, but that
doesn't mean one should bounce from one to the next to the next, nor that
they will all bring you to the same place, in the end.

Well, I seem to have finally made it in somewhat more direct a
fashion...
I don't know. Maybe these different paths do bring you to the same
place in the end. One thing that has led to much more tolerance over
the past century is the fact that people began looking at the
experiences of mystics and visionaries across many religions and
realizing that they were all quite similar. Or at any rate that there
were far more similarities than differences.
There's been a lot of warning against spiritual dilettantism, against
people dabbling in other religions and then moving on to something
else. Or taking up new religions as they might take up fashions.
It's true that there is something innately comic in this phenomenon,
but I find myself asking what's the alternative? Do we want everybody
stubborning clinging to their traditions, insisting that theirs is the
best and that everything else is garbage? That was the way it was until
very recently; in many places and with many people it still is the way
it is.
I think the dilettantism has actually had a very positive aspect. It's
better to be fascinated with some alien tradition, to dabble in it
even, than to ignore or despise it as something contemptible, such as
was done with what are called "Native" religions until very recently.
No, I think bouncing from the next to the next, however absurd it may
seem, is actually performing a positive function at this particular
phase of history. A kind of cross-pollination.
You may counter by saying, "Yes, but isn't that a kind of spiritual
stalemate? Doesn't that keep you from progress on the spiritual path?"
To which one can only respond that that is for the individual to
decide. Generally such assumptions are based on the consideration that
"other people" are just wasting their time and not really getting
anywhere. Which may well be true. But then it's their time to waste and
for them to decide whether they're getting anywhere or not.

Richard--you and Jay are responding ably and I thank you.
I know what you mean about the value of cross pollination in so called
spiritual dilettantism. And of course presumably one tests a bit of
this and that flower till one finds the pollen that makes the right
honey for one's own type. And then one returns to that flower
consistently. HOpefully, it works out that way. But of course there are
also a great number of silly people, who've been satirized in lots of
places, including the tv show Absolutely Fabulous, who are addicted to
the leap from one thing to the next, addicted to superficial
stimulation, and don't want (or know they need) the deeper challenges
and the suffering that goes with those deeper challenges. Some would
say the kaleidoscoping of all these attractions constitutes a kind of
spiritual darwinism--separating out the worthy from the unworthy. (Not
that I know that *I'm* worthy!)
So--to ask a question I asked before more directly: Can you talk about
spiritual teachers who've influenced you, in creating this book, in
terms of direct face to face contact, and how that worked? For example,
I'm sure Rosemonde Miller, of the Gnostic ecclesia in Palo Alto (a
fascinating teacher of real integrity with an intelligently guided
church) was influential in the Gnostic material.
I'm always captivated by anything that gives real solid-seeming
information about old time secret societies and lodges and
brotherhoods, 'invisible' or otherwise. (Few know that CS Lewis,
doctrinaire Christian though he was, came into contact with one of
these through a close friend who was also a fantasy writer...and who
died young.) Your chapter on these groups quotes Gurdjieff's assertion
that the Fourth Way (ie, the method of the Wise) emerges when it's
needed and in many guises. Through this and other hints I seem to glean
that you're implying that some 'colleges' or secret societies may be
not only 'invisible' in the sense of hidden, but may be in sense
literally invisible. That is, a kind of spiritually-existing lodge of,
perhaps, masters who've passed on, who're influencing us...as well as
those who're mortal and do it through means passed on by oral
tradition...?

As far as face-to-face influences go, my list of people in the book's
acknowlegements is largely that. Most of the influence has been in the
context of friendship, of comparing notes and providing feedback to each
other. My two primary influences on interpreting Gnosticism have been
Rosmaonde Miller, as you mentioned, and Stephan Hoeller, who has written
several books on the subject.
(I'm going to have to finish answsering this later, my connection to the
net has slowed to a crawl, for some reason...)

Regarding the material on Sufism, I've been immersed in its study for
a number of years and my main influences there have all been friends,
some of whom likely don't want their names blithely given out to the
world at large. Two of them, in particular, are Turkish friends - a
doctor and a pharmacist - who have shared much with me from their own
experience.
John, your next question (or comment) was, in part:
"Through this and other hints I seem to glean that you're implying
that some 'colleges' or secret societies may be not only 'invisible' in
the sense of hidden, but may be in sense literally invisible."
That's a controversial area and one where the question of what is
objectively real and what is one's imagination is very much to the
point. I'll just say that I used to think that most religions were
putting out superstitious nonsense when they'd speak of invisible
entities (whether angels, demons, or the "communion of saints", etc.).
But I've come to the conclusion, over the years, partly based on my
own experiences and observations, that there is individuated
consciousness outside of bodily existence and that one can speak of
beings being stratified in different planes of existence. And there may
even be some form of communication possible between different planes.
Now whether this is, in fact, desirable or not, is another question.
One of my problems with the tendency some people have to give
unquestioning credence to "channeling" from unseen entities is that, as
I understand it, just being out of a body and claiming to be wise, is
no guarantee of anything. I think it is quite possible to channel
mischievous (or worse) disinformation, even while the being who is
holding forth is claiming all sorts of virtuous motives.
So, this leaves open the question of if one were to contact an
"invisible college," whether one was, in fact, contacting a wisdom
school or the inner plane equivalent of the P2 Lodge in Italy. It
appears that the Solar Temple folks who committed group suicide were,
in part, doing so on the advice of "inner plane" Rosicrucians or
Templars. I'd consider that a dubious bunch to make contact with,
myself.

I heard the SOlar Temple suicides were the victims of a military mind
control experiment--but who knows what the truth is. Maybe they simply
succumbed to a charismatic pathological liar. As many others have--and
probably will in the turn of the millenium.
Speaking of charismatic liars, your book is fairly generous to Madame
Blavatsky, but wasn't she definitely and without ambiguity caught at
defrauding people, setting up fake spiritualistic phenomena etc? Does
this make her other descriptions of the unseen likely to be
fabrications or fantasy? Is credibility an issue with the sources of
Hidden Wisdom? I note in several places Hidden Wisdom stops to offer
cautionary advice--in brief, it's true, but still, it seems a concern.
Although doubtless many sources are describing something real, isn't
the entire esoteric study problematic respecting credibilty, at least
fairly often?
Then there's the issue of how much a teacher's character flaws may
cast doubt on the rightness of his teachings...For example, Gurdjieff
seems to me to be right amazingly often, yet he fathered numerous
children out of wedlock to numerous women, many of them followers.
(Although he was from the Caucasus area, like Murat Yagan, who, as I
recall, claimed that in that area it is believed that some of the
spiritual achievements of the father can be passed on to the offspring
through the semen! Could Gurdjieff have justified it to himself that
way?)

My chief spiritual discipline IN THIS VERY MOMENT is to refrain from
making a snide response to the claims mentioned in the paragraph above
(no offense, John).
Mme. Blavatsky, it is true, was accused of psychic fraud. I don't know
specific details of this, other than that some Englishman was shipped
off to India to investigate her and came back with the proclamation
that she was in fact doing some shenanigans that were more than a tad
deceptive.
On the other hand, she did accomplish some extremely important work. I
would say that she is the most influential religious figure in the
West over the past century, bar none. Because what she almost
single-handedly did was open the mind of the West to the spiritual
wisdom of the East.
If you do Buddhist meditation, if you do hatha yoga, if you even drop
words like "karma" and "chakra" into ordinary conversation, you bear
the marks of Mme. Blavatsky's influence.
I'm not a Theosophist or a follower of Blavatsky, but the more I look
into these things, the more I see that the influence she had was truly
far-reaching.
Like all legacies, there is a certain ambiguousness in it. She
definitely fed the craze for occult parlor tricks of all kinds, and the
kind of ditzy seeker that John was talking about a couple of posts
back also bears the mark of Blavatsky's influence. Not that she was a
dilettante, but that Theosophy has seemed to encourage this kind of
airheadedness at various points (this is particularly true of
Blavatsky's successors).
As for the question of a teacher's character, I think it does have
real bearing on the quality of the teaching. The Gurdjieff legacy is
also an ambiguous one, and much of what passes for the Fourth Way today
seems either fradulent or ossified (now there's a charming choice to
have to make). And yet I certainly have received a great deal of
benefit myself from Gurdjieff's ideas.
The "bottom line," as we like to say in America today, is that nobody
is perfect and we are all in the same boat. The more somebody denies
being in the same boat as everyone else, the more in the same boat he
is.

One *does* have to watch out for pathological liars in the spiritual
field, as in any other. In some cases they can get farther in
spirituality than in, say, investment banking, because they often make
claims that are unverifiable. Thus the rule of thumb that I mention in
the Afterword to maintain a healthy skepticism about claims and
worldviews until one has personally verified them oneself.
That said, there *is* a whole category of teachers, including
Blavatsky and Gurdjieff, who seem to concoct "teaching stories" or
myths that are quite attractive to people but, quite possibly, not
literally true. Perhaps these serve a similar function to the
slight-of-hand tricks that tribal shamans employ: they engender a kind
of open "anything is possible" state of mind which can help bust
through the individual's normal defenses. If this is then used for the
individual's betterment, fine. But it can also be used to take them to
the cleaners.
Paul Johnson, in his two books on the subject, makes a reasonably
convincing case that Madame Blavatsky's "mahatmas" were amalgams and/or
stand-ins for real people who served as her advisors. Much of the
hocus-pocus about their materialization and dematerialization, etc. may
have been a smokescreen to direct attention away from who they may
have really been. But, even if this is so, it doesn't negate some the
value of some of the advice they imparted nor does it lessen the
concrete effect they (and she) had on the world.

Hello, this promises to be a fascinating discussion. Jay, you said:
>I think the perspective that Richard and I utilized in the book was
>that the various traditions covered share the context of having
>developed within Western culture as well as having helped shape it.
How do you define Gnosticism, for the purposes of your book? I always
thought of it as one of those traditions whose ideas were shuttlecocked
back and forth between east and west.

Your chapter on Hermeticism, Alchemy, et al, was fascinating--you guys
have (perhaps through practice at Gnosis as well as talent) a gift for
rendering difficult ideas and complex historical backgrounds with that
glorious combination, insight and brevity. That makes the book so very
valuable.
About alchemy--isn't there, kind of, two parallel tracks in
alchemy...One, a kind of occult chemistry, trying to make the
philosopher's stone, etc, and the other an inner work which uses the
traditional alchemical experiments as symbolism? Sort of like what you
said about that final enigmatic Hiram ritual in Masonry--all those
enactments and seemingly concrete measurements and designations are
just indirect ways of describing work in the heart: the work of
learning detached compassion, higher receptivity and self denial. This
work is transformative--it makes a rough stone into a polished block of
the temple or lead into gold. Gurdjieff and Mouravieff speak of
creating 'gold' or a special energy (or spiritual evolution) which the
cosmos requires of us through the inner 'furnace', the productive
conflict of transforming forces, eg Conscious Suffering utilizing the
Law of Three--isn't that what alchemy is really about? Could the actual
lab work be a too-literal distortion of the real teaching? (There are
parallels in Chinese alchemy and Taoism--Lao Tzu's Taoism the real
teaching, Chinese alchemy a distortion of it).
You describe divination well in its various forms--but underlyingly,
how does it work? Why should cards with symbolic pictures give us
insight into now and glimpses of what is to come? YOu hint of this in
various places--perhaps synchronicity is involved--but do you have some
sense of the actual mechanism with which Tarot achieves what it
achieves when it achieves it?
Finally--in the excellent chapter on Gurdjieff, you say that all
traditions use mindfulness but Gurdjieff places it (mindfulness and use
of attention and the relationship of these to the movement of
esoterically-understood energies) at the center of his Work and makes a
sort of art of it, provides more specific methodologies. Seems true to
me. I see in the chapter on ritual magic that attention, total focus,
is important there too--attention is the axis of mindfulness, perhaps.
And attention--a refined, "buffed up" attention--seems to be a
fundamental tool of many esoteric traditions, maybe of all of them. Is
attention itself--within the field of mindfulness-- an almost-palpable
magical thing in itself?

Welcome to the discussion/interview, Indra. You asked:
"How do you define Gnosticism, for the purposes of your book? I always
thought of it as one of those traditions whose ideas were
shuttlecocked back and forth between east and west."
I tend to look at Gnosticism (with a capital G) as the label for
various early Christian groups (and some of their precursors) who
placed an emphasis on "gnosis", i.e. on the individual's knowledge (or
knowing experience) of divine reality. Some of the groups were dualist
and some not (or at least less so). They tended to collect around
different mystics or visionaries who sometimes claimed to be the
recipients of a secret teaching passed along from Jesus.
The other gnosticism (with a small g) I tend to think of as later
efforts to recapture or promulgate the spirit or teachings of the early
Gnostics. Or, in other instance, I use the term to refer to groups are
people who emphasize gnosis, but aren't necessarily linked with the
early Christian groups.
It is quite likely that there was interplay between eastern and
western ideas, concepts, and theology in ancient times, and that
possibly had an effect on the Gnostics. However, as I note in the book,
it strikes me as likely that the reason similar concepts and myths pop
up in different cultures is that they derive from trying to
communicate inner experiences that are quite similar. While not ALL
instances of mystical union are the same, enough of them around the
world are similar that they may produce similar efforts to portray
them.

I read somewhere--re the remarks on interplay between eastern and
western ideas in ancient times--that there was trade between India and
the Middle East before and during the time of Jesus. There is at least
one book claiming Jesus was a Buddhist.
Wanted to add one thing to the Blavatsky discussion before it becomes
an utter non sequitur--Richard traces the stream of "Western" interest
in Vedantic (and so forth) teachings to Blavatsky and associates and no
doubt she was a significant tributary to that river, but it seems to
me that Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Transcendentalists were there
first; that Vivekananda was not a Theosophical functionary and was
quite a force on his own for the dissemination of such ideas in the
West; that Alan Watts and Aldous Huxley and Kerouac were important in
the mid 20th century in bringing some notion of 'the dharma' et al here
including talk of karma and so forth; and that the real force of the
present-day current of interest flows more from the psychedelic
revolution, via Tim Leary and even LSD itself...I wonder if what was
accomplished was not the 'agenda' of the Theosophists...but of those
who found the Theosophists useful...But that's just speculation.
Anyway--Blavatsky's ideas about the ancient past of man are not
supported by archaeology, anthropology, carbon dating, or probability.
Just had to put my anti-spiritualist prejudices on display, didn't I?

No, but then neither are Gurdjieff's, Rudolf Steiner's, or anyone
else's in this field, for that matter. There is one area, however, in
which Blavatsky's views are remarkably striking and apparently
accurate. This is where she discusses the time scale of the cosmos.
Like modern science (and also like ancient Hindu tradition), she frames
this in terms of billions of years. During her day, as I recollect,
even the most forward-thinking of scientists only believed the universe
was only 100 million years old.
The ideas about the ancient past of man are admittedly perplexing.
Nearly all of these occult visionaries seem to view the human past in
terms of different levels of manifestation. That is, these ancient
races of humankind were different from ours not in being more chimplike
but in being less palpable; Blavatsky even jocularly refers to one of
them as "pudding-bags" for this reason.
I don't know how you could either validate or refute such a view,
since even if it were true, there could be no material evidence for it.
I do think it important to stress one point about archaeology that was
made by Thucydides in the fifth century B.C. He pointed out that the
Sparta of his day was one of the great powers, but if it should be
"deserted and nothing left of its but its temples and the foundations
of its other buildings, posterity would, I think, after a long lapse of
time, be very loath to believe that their power was as great as their
renown."
We have to consider the possibility, I think, that there may have been
ancient civilizations whose achievements were spectacular - though not
necessarily technical - and which may have not left any archaeological
residue.
And yes, it's true that there have been other popularizers of Eastern
wisdom. But I would still argue that they would not have had the
reception they had if Blavatsky hadn't tilled the field.